A video?, his results speak for themselves. Yeah, the courts... I've seen haters like you talking here in 2006 saying how the clay specialist Nadal would be beaten by the first decent grass player in Wimbledon, and then how he'd never win the USO. But of course, once he won them they were suddenly just like clay, lol.

Must have been hard for you.

RAfa is 5 years younger, he reached those finals in HIS prime.

Oh, and Fed was the lucky one that Nadal got too nervous in that 2007 final (not to mention the way the scheduling went).

.

Click to expand...

I don't think that Rafa is one dimensional and I do consider him a great. It's funny when Roger haters talk about luck. The slowing down of grass hurt Roger the most and benefitted Rafa the most in the Roger - Fed rivalry. When the grass is fast in the first week, Rafa is busy playing five setters with nobodies in second or third round. I think 2008 and 2011 are the only two times he cruised without playing five setters in second or third round. And you talk about luck, lolz haters gonna hate only

I don't think that Rafa is one dimensional and I do consider him a great. It's funny when Roger haters talk about luck. The slowing down of grass hurt Roger the most and benefitted Rafa the most in the Roger - Fed rivalry. When the grass is fast in the first week, Rafa is busy playing five setters with nobodies in second or third round. I think 2008 and 2011 are the only two times he cruised without playing five setters in second or third round. And you talk about luck, lolz haters gonna hate only

Click to expand...

Ridiculous for more than one reason. The grass at Wimby was changed in 2001, and Fed didn't win his first Wimby title until 2003 AFTER the grass had been changed. Nadal won his Wimby titles on THE EXACT SAME GRASS that Fed won his on.

Fed fans seem to have total recall of all things imaginary when it comes to the grass at Wimby since they keep insisting Fed won all of his Wimby titles on the old grass when that is absolutely false. It's also funny how the grass was lightning fast when Fed won Wimby from 2003-2007, and then suddenly turned to clay in 2008, then back to lightning quick in 2009, back to clay in 2010 and then fast again from 2011-2012. I wonder why they think that way? And I wonder which personality the grass will choose to be next year since it's the Jekyll and Hyde of the ATP tour. :lol:

Find me one video of Nadal hitting a proper drive volley (not the pushy ones he plays all the time when his opponent is 10 miles off court) and I'll change mind. He doesn't have any power on his volleys whatsoever, he just hits smart approach shots, that's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know what you mean. You mean punch volleys. I thought you meant swinging volleys. Punch volleys, yeah, he doesn't do them very often if at all. Swinging volleys, however, he does do them sometimes (in fact quite often when he was young).

I don't think it's right to discredit Nadal even if he IS quite one dimensional. He does it better than anyone else in the world.

Also, Nadal has improved A LOT, and I mean A LOT as his career progresses. His added MPHs to his serve, his forehand got MUCH more aggressive (except when compared to early 2004, when he often went for broke off that wing) and reliable, and his backhand has turned from a liability to an occasional weapon. If he is declining, it's due to his mileage, not his lack of skill.

I don't think that Rafa is one dimensional and I do consider him a great. It's funny when Roger haters talk about luck. The slowing down of grass hurt Roger the most and benefitted Rafa the most in the Roger - Fed rivalry. When the grass is fast in the first week, Rafa is busy playing five setters with nobodies in second or third round. I think 2008 and 2011 are the only two times he cruised without playing five setters in second or third round. And you talk about luck, lolz haters gonna hate only

Click to expand...

What Clarky said about this. Fed has indeed been quite lucky in more than one respect.

My answer was a little in "answering to hater" mode so it was a little too harsh. but I do mean that it was clear he could beat him there from that 2007 final, so it wasn't because of mono or fed being (allegedly) past his prime that he beat him in 2008.

i think he is a great all court player. it is just unfortunate that he's put his body through all that at such a young age. hopefully by cutting down on hard courts and playing more on clay it will prolong his career.

i think he is a great all court player. it is just unfortunate that he's put his body through all that at such a young age. hopefully by cutting down on hard courts and playing more on clay it will prolong his career.

Click to expand...

Grass isn't that bad on your kness either, so why is he supposedly skipping Wimbledon too?

Nadal has proven beyond a doubt his abilities outside clay when you compare it vs the vast majority of the field but when you start comparing the greatest of the greats, I think Nadal could definitely bolster his resume off clay.

Click to expand...

Maybe but again Nadal as a pro is looking at this from a very different point view, he knows how tremendously hard slams are to actually win, I doubt he goes and checks his stats at ATP site or his wikipedia page and goes "Gee I could use another USO and AO to bolster my resumee on HC, that's what I'll win next!" , I mean slam titles don't grow on trees.

I would rather he have a shortened career but focus 1 yr heavily outside clay than play clay season for 3 years winning his 11 billionth MC.

Click to expand...

But that's the problem, I sincerely doubt that's a trade-off Nadal would accept and that's presumed he even succeeds in the attempt, what if he focuses heavily off clay one year which costs him his FO title but he still fails to win any of the non-clay slams?

Now I'm not saying he will never win another off-clay slam or that he doesn't have the ability to do so but they're a far more of an uncertain proposition for him compared to clay where he's still so far ahead of the pack.

But again I doubt Nadal himself sees it that way, he'll just want to get more slam titles whenever and wherever he can and FO is by far his safest bet so that's where he'll focus, any pro in his shoes would have done the same.

He's also not in a position like say Lendl was that he lacks the Holy Grail of tennis that is WImbledon in his resumee and will do everything to win it, he already has 2 Wimbledons nor does he lack career slam as he won USO back in 2010.

Certainly I see no reason why he should not focus on grass at least, it is much easier on his joints than HC and despite the Rosol loss I would say he is still the 2nd best player on grass behind Fed.

Click to expand...

No doubt but as Crissti said, a lot of Nadal's success on grass (Wimbledon in particular) depends on his momentum from FO carrying over so it's not that simple.

I'm not saying that when Nadal comes back he won't try hard to win any of the big tourneys regardless of the surface but his priority will no doubt be the CC season which IMO makes perfect sense given his circumstances, as I said I doubt any pro would think differently in his shoes.

Is it true that you and your team are considering playing more matches on clay in 2013 and, if so, why?

[RN] We’ll see how it all unfolds. At the end of the day, the season you have will determine the results. But yes, we have to try prioritise playing a bit more on clay, insofar as we can within our schedule, which provides little room for manoeuvre. Firstly, it is a less aggressive surface for my body, and secondly because it is a surface in which I have always felt comfortable, as well as getting great results. I love playing on clay.

When you wrote this thread and titled it with the header you did, it sounds like you are referring to his playing style. But I don't know why you would say he's *keyword* "becoming" if he was always very affectionate to the clay surface his entire career. He's always preferred clay. So I don't know why you're referring to him "becoming" a one dimensional player. Plus that doesn't make him a one dimensional player if all he has is a court preference, as he's proven that he's adapted very well to grass and hard court. He can play and both and currently plays very well on both. In fact, last year he placed in the finals again at wimbledon and what other spaniard does that? So is that a one dimensional player? You ask me... He's always preferred clay it and played and resulted best on it, but that's like me preferring Lucky Charms, but that isn't to say that I won't eat Raisin Bran. Rafa hasn't changed much in that regard. If you take that out, then rafa has always preferred the surface, so I don't see what the point to this thread is about. But I will say this for rafa. I think he could easily play more clay matches and skip out on more hard court events. I think he could beat guys bagels and breadsticks and breeze through even teh smaller tournaments and accumulate maybe more points than if he played more hard court matches. The worry there is that it's such a tight stretch, he might fatigue himself. But I do think he should play less hard court. I think it puts a much strain on his body and to me, it's unnecessary as his priorities should mainly be Clay, Grandslams, and 1K hard court tournies.

Ridiculous for more than one reason. The grass at Wimby was changed in 2001, and Fed didn't win his first Wimby title until 2003 AFTER the grass had been changed. Nadal won his Wimby titles on THE EXACT SAME GRASS that Fed won his on.

Fed fans seem to have total recall of all things imaginary when it comes to the grass at Wimby since they keep insisting Fed won all of his Wimby titles on the old grass when that is absolutely false. It's also funny how the grass was lightning fast when Fed won Wimby from 2003-2007, and then suddenly turned to clay in 2008, then back to lightning quick in 2009, back to clay in 2010 and then fast again from 2011-2012. I wonder why they think that way? And I wonder which personality the grass will choose to be next year since it's the Jekyll and Hyde of the ATP tour. :lol:

Click to expand...

You have either serious comprehension problem or you pretend. I never said all these things, since you addressed all these things to me.

Grass was slowed down in 2002 after Goran won his Wimbledon. When Roger and Rafa play slowed grass helps Rafa. Roger didn't reach finals by playing five setters in round two and round three like Rafa. Ecept for 2008 and 2011, Rafa was very close to elimination in the early rounds in Wimbledon, thats when Grass was fast compared to last rounds. This is fact not opinion

You have either serious comprehension problem or you pretend. I never said all these things, since you addressed all these things to me.

Grass was slowed down in 2002 after Goran won his Wimbledon. When Roger and Rafa play slowed grass helps Rafa. Roger didn't reach finals by playing five setters in round two and round three like Rafa. Ecept for 2008 and 2011, Rafa was very close to elimination in the early rounds in Wimbledon, thats when Grass was fast compared to last rounds. This is fact not opinion

Click to expand...

Oh, man this is too funny. :lol: You missed the point of my entire post. And Nadal was also on the verge of elimination in 2010 at Wimby but he won it didn't he? *******s complained to no end about how slow it was that year(and any other excuses they would come up with including Nadal calling the trainer and supposedly getting coached). Just like they do every year if Nadal does well there. Why can't you understand that?

And sorry, Fed still won his Wimby titles on the same grass Nadal won his on. That's not disputable because it is a FACT.

And *******s do go on and on about how slow it is when Nadal does well there, but they never say that when Fed wins it. I wonder why? I have actually seen *******s say the grass was faster when Fed has won it hence why I made the comments about Wimby grass having multiple personalities.

And *******s do go on and on about how slow it is when Nadal does well there, but they never say that when Fed wins it. I wonder why? I have actually seen *******s say the grass was faster when Fed has won it hence why I made the comments about Wimby grass having multiple personalities.

Click to expand...

You didn't know that Clarky? Fed's result on some tournament is a speed test.

You didn't know that Clarky? Fed's result on some tournament is a speed test.

Click to expand...

This is true. If Fed does well somehwere it's a fast surface, but the second he starts struggling the surface becomes as slow as molasses. Lol. It's just a way to try and make excuses for Fed's results, and denigrate Nadal at the same time.

Oh, man this is too funny. :lol: You missed the point of my entire post. And Nadal was also on the verge of elimination in 2010 at Wimby but he won it didn't he? *******s complained to no end about how slow it was that year(and any other excuses they would come up with including Nadal calling the trainer and supposedly getting coached). Just like they do every year if Nadal does well there. Why can't you understand that?

And sorry, Fed still won his Wimby titles on the same grass Nadal won his on. That's not disputable because it is a FACT.

And *******s do go on and on about how slow it is when Nadal does well there, but they never say that when Fed wins it. I wonder why? I have actually seen *******s say the grass was faster when Fed has won it hence why I made the comments about Wimby grass having multiple personalities.

Click to expand...

"*******s" don't mention when Fed does well even if the grass is slower because he's not supposed to be as good on slow surfaces as he is on fast ones. Even so, it's more about the bounce than the speed I would say. I would also say the grass was still relatively "fast" compared to today, in 2003, 2004, and 2005, (I might include 2006, if I didn't know you would lose it on me because he beat Nadal there ).

Watch this video as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw I don't know of its credibility though. I will say that much. And it could have to do with more than just the grass, like the type of balls that were used.

It's not as if the grass got slow all of a sudden though. I think it's been a gradual thing.

"*******s" don't mention when Fed does well even if the grass is slower because he's not supposed to be as good on slow surfaces as he is on fast ones. Even so, it's more about the bounce than the speed I would say. I would also say the grass was still relatively "fast" compared to today, in 2003, 2004, and 2005, (I might include 2006, if I didn't know you would lose it on me because he beat Nadal there ).

Watch this video as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw I don't know of its credibility though. I will say that much. And it could have to do with more than just the grass, like the type of balls that were used.

It's not as if the grass got slow all of a sudden though. I think it's been a gradual thing.

Click to expand...

the grass was changed after wimbledon 2000 or 2001..i thought, as do alot of people, that it was changed after wimby 2001 but apparently it was after 2000.

So, yes, despite what Clarky fails to understand (or pretends she doesn't understand), of course the slowing down of surfaces hasn't been in Federer's favour. Which is not to say that he would have won more Wimbledons on faster grass, but he would clearly have been more favoured vs Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray than he is on current "slow" grass. ie he would almost certainly have won the 2008 final on faster grass, but on the other hand, he very probably would have lost in 2009 to Roddick (and maybe in 2004 as well), so maybe it wouldn't have been to his advantage *overall*, but it sure would have been *against Nadal*.

So, yes, despite what Clarky fails to understand (or pretends she doesn't understand), of course the slowing down of surfaces hasn't been in Federer's favour. Which is not to say that he would have won more Wimbledons on faster grass, but he would clearly have been more favoured vs Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray than he is on current "slow" grass.

Click to expand...

Yes, because we all have a crystal ball to see whether Fed would do better IF faster grass was used. And it's not just against Nadal, how would you know if he would be better off against other players? What about the two finals against Roddick? Certainly even faster grass helps Roddick's serve. Hardcourts you might have a point, but I don't think we should generalize across all surfaces. Remember,not even Fed won a Wimbledon before it was slowed down.

Yes, because we all have a crystal ball to see whether Fed would do better IF faster grass was used. And it's not just against Nadal, how would you know if he would be better off against other players?

Yes, because we all have a crystal ball to see whether Fed would do better IF faster grass was used. And it's not just against Nadal, how would you know if he would be better off against other players? What about the two finals against Roddick? Certainly even faster grass helps Roddick's serve. Hardcourts you might have a point, but I don't think we should generalize across all surfaces. Remember,not even Fed won a Wimbledon before it was slowed down.

Click to expand...

Lol! Looks like we both answered while the other guy was adding to his post, nicely done!

Is it true that you and your team are considering playing more matches on clay in 2013 and, if so, why?

[RN] We’ll see how it all unfolds. At the end of the day, the season you have will determine the results. But yes, we have to try prioritise playing a bit more on clay, insofar as we can within our schedule, which provides little room for manoeuvre. Firstly, it is a less aggressive surface for my body, and secondly because it is a surface in which I have always felt comfortable, as well as getting great results. I love playing on clay.

Lol! Looks like we both answered while the other guy was adding to his post, nicely done!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought people (or you) were talking about overall. Then I would say no, simple because of the fact that we never know. But if we are talking about match-ups, then I agree Fed would fare better against guys like Djokovic and Nadal. Murray I don't know, he's a good fast court player too, actually.